Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you're OK with traveling thousands of miles to shoot at, bomb and napalm, people who never attacked us, or even threatened us ? Just wondering.Since Vietnam era soldiers did not steal US Gov't land and property, nor did they take up arms against the US, no the statues should not be removed. But then, you have ignored this simple fact all along. So carry on with your wasted rants.
And what about millions of southern soldiers and civilians who DIDN'T "take up arms against the US", but merely fought in SELF-DEFENSE against people from elsewhere, who were attacking them ?
But then, you (and you puppy dog, Jake Starkey), have ignored this simple fact all along. So carry on with your wasted rants.
It WASN'T about slavery for many, if not most, southern fighters. AS I HAVE ALREADY said (lost count how many times now), it was common for southern fighters to know nothing about slavery. They fought only because someone was attacking them and their community, and this was a very legitimate reasonExcept there was nothing legitimate about what the Confederate Traitors did.
You see, the biggest mistake after the Civil War was not to have a tribunal and put Lee, Davis and the rest of the traitors at the end of ropes. That way, they couldn't spread a lot of bullshit about it wasn't about slavery....
You can refuse to acknowledge this fact, if you wish, and keep yammering about slavery. No problem.
So you're OK with traveling thousands of miles to shoot at, bomb and napalm, people who never attacked us, or even threatened us ? Just wondering.Since Vietnam era soldiers did not steal US Gov't land and property, nor did they take up arms against the US, no the statues should not be removed. But then, you have ignored this simple fact all along. So carry on with your wasted rants.
And what about millions of southern soldiers and civilians who DIDN'T "take up arms against the US", but merely fought in SELF-DEFENSE against people from elsewhere, who were attacking them ?
But then, you (and you puppy dog, Jake Starkey), have ignored this simple fact all along. So carry on with your wasted rants.
Leave the SOLDIERS' statues alone.
No kidding. I'm talking about statues on public land.If you have a statue of a soldier, you can keep it and no one will take it.
However, a statue on public land does not have the same protections. Sorry. That is just how it works.
Can anyone understand this jibbersish ? If so, please don't explain.1. No, the secessionists who raised arms raised them against Old Glory and the Union.
2. The great majority of our nation cared then and now. No one cares that the secessionists became soldiers.
3. The Unionists in the Confederate mountain country was honorable patriots not treasonous scum.
4. Our HSs and colleges are bastions of good mainstream Americanism, flicking metaphorically its teeth at confederate lunacy.
5. The US Code outlaws your mismatch of crazy anti-constitutional hatred of civil liberties.
ACTUALLY Mr Wrong, It is the Vietnam soldiers whose fighting was in the improper, caused by the improper acts of politicians who placed them there, and thus, don't equate with the proper fighting of southern civil war soldiers (and civilians) who fought self-defensively.protectionist yapping away, not understanding anything, except to personally attack. Our soldiers in Vietnam do not equate with the traitors from the south who fought against Old Glory, the Constitution, and the Union. Tough, protectionist, as almost always, you are bigly wrong.
Try reading the thread before you post. You're missing a lot.I have huge issues with the entire Vietnam War. We should not have been there at all. But those who went did so in service of their country. The confederates stole from the US and raised arms against the US when the US military came to bring them back into the United States of America.
No matter what it "was about" to the politicians, to many, if not most, of the southern fighters, it was just about someone was attacking them and their community.The declarations of secession of numerous states clearly stated that it was about slavery. The constitution of the CSA stated that it was about slavery. The most famous proof is the speech given by none other than the vice president of the CSA stating that slavery was the cornerstone of the new nation. The fact that men fought who did not own slaves does not change that. The fear mongers kept them agitated by saying Lincoln would make teh slaves equals. They told them that the slaves would take their jobs and their women. They believed them.
It WASN'T about slavery for many, if not most, southern fighters. AS I HAVE ALREADY said (lost count how many times now), it was common for southern fighters to know nothing about slavery. They fought only because someone was attacking them and their community, and this was a very legitimate reason
In any case, it doesn't take a history teacher to know that slaves engaged in picking cotton, and that was a coastal plain activity, which the isolated mountain folk knew nothing about, being hundreds of miles away (no TV, Radio, computers, and people were illiterate) Ho hum.
You are talking total NONSENSE.How did the confederate states gain the forts they had? Did they build them? Did the USA give them away? Or were they taken by force?
It was not a defensive battle on the part of the confederates. It was a defensive battle by the Union soldiers defending the Union and the United States of America from traitors.
idiotIt WASN'T about slavery for many, if not most, southern fighters. AS I HAVE ALREADY said (lost count how many times now), it was common for southern fighters to know nothing about slavery. They fought only because someone was attacking them and their community, and this was a very legitimate reason
Uh, guy, I'm sure that even the most backward-ass, inbred Southerner knew slavery was a thing. The problem was, most of them were horrified at the thought that a black man might be free to have sex with his daughter. They might not have had shit, but they were always happy to know someone has less.
Come to think of it, I think this is what motivates jackasses like you who hate on undocumented workers.
In any case, it doesn't take a history teacher to know that slaves engaged in picking cotton, and that was a coastal plain activity, which the isolated mountain folk knew nothing about, being hundreds of miles away (no TV, Radio, computers, and people were illiterate) Ho hum.
Okay, very few people lived in the mountain areas fucking their sibling then or now. So um, no, that one doesn't fly. Again, these dumb fucks do what dumb fucks do in the South Today- Hate on brown people who are in the same boat they are in.
THIS is why we need to tear down ALL the statues. To show you get no honor for being racist.
Removing those statues is nought more than an effort to make all memory of civil war go away. A nice side-effect, though, is that it will clear space for statues in honor of the heroes who will flight in the looming race war. Thank You, ex-"President" Obama!
That is loony tunes. Looming race war? Are you really that far right, Henry? Your white neighbors will put stop to any effort by you immediately. And I am sure LEO has you on record if you are making goofy statements like that.Removing those statues is nought more than an effort to make all memory of civil war go away. A nice side-effect, though, is that it will clear space for statues in honor of the heroes who will flight in the looming race war. Thank You, ex-"President" Obama!
No kidding. I'm talking about statues on public land.If you have a statue of a soldier, you can keep it and no one will take it.
However, a statue on public land does not have the same protections. Sorry. That is just how it works.
